As 7 p.m.
approaches, the high-desert sunlight lingers with a golden hue and
80 degree warmth, favoring the people who pull their vehicles into
the downtown lot by the Lamphouse Theater. Disembarking and filing
into the movie theater, they appear to be a Western cross-section:
carefully stepping gray-haired ladies, a guy in an electric
wheelchair, a few sweet little girls, the vice mayor, a toddler
clinging to a mother's shoulder, two doctors, and the inevitable
guy wearing camo pants.

Collectively, they would seem to
have little to worry about. All around them on this mid-June
evening, Twin Falls prospers, grown up recently into a livable
small city of 40,000 residents, complete with branches of Old Navy
and New York Burrito and Cold Stone Creamery, nestled in productive
farmland and authentic sagebrush. Sprinklers green the crops at
city's edge, emitting a comforting hiss that is music to desert
dwellers.

The theater occupies the back room of a saloon
complex. It's an intimate setting, where thick curtains baffle the
walls and about 100 upholstered seats, on a downward slope, face
the screen. The seats are mostly filled; some of the people are
drinking beers they've carried in from the saloon. They've come to
show (1) support for a man they respect, and (2) their insistence
on the U.S. constitutional right to bear arms, which they see
enshrined in the Second Amendment, right up there with the
amendments guaranteeing freedom of speech and religion.

Ryan Horsley greets them as they walk in; he knows many by name.
He's a young-looking 32-year-old with a perennially friendly manner
and a Beach Boys-ian haircut. He's president of the Historic
Downtown Twin Falls Business Improvement District, chairman of the
Planning and Zoning Commission, board member of the Chamber of
Commerce.

Mainly, though, he runs Red's Trading Post,
which bills itself, without much argument, as Idaho's oldest gun
shop. His great-grandfather, Lowell "Red" Kinney, opened the shop
71 years ago. It's located a few blocks from the theater, in a
building made of black lava rock pried from the land. Horsley took
over the shop about eight years ago as other family members stepped
back, and he changed it from a clutter of knickknacks into a
formidable business that offers rows of assault rifles and nearly
everything else a shooter would desire. Serving online customers as
well as walk-ins, the shop sells 2,000 guns per year.

But
now the federal gun-control agency — the Bureau of Alcohol,
Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (commonly called ATF) —
wants to yank the license that allows Red's Trading Post to sell
guns.

Horsley stands in front of the movie screen and
thanks the crowd for showing up. He talks of how he's spent more
than $50,000 in court battles against the feds in the past year,
trying to keep his license. "It's been a real journey for my family
and I," he says. "But the more you stand up, the more they want to
knock you down."

The lights dim, and the movie begins.
Titled The Gang, it was made by a
super-hard-line national gun-rights group, Jews for the
Preservation of Firearms Ownership. The group believes the United
States government has copied Nazi gun-control laws that disarmed
Jews during the Holocaust; it is holding the movie's national
theatrical premiere here tonight, with no admission charge, to
reinforce Horsley and Red's Trading Post in the minds of the
locals.

The Gang has the format of a documentary,
presenting interviews and other evidence, but really it's a
one-sided attack on the ATF. For 85 minutes, it charges that the
ATF operates as a $1 billion "criminal organization," persecuting
innocent gun dealers and gun owners, lying, conspiring with
big-government politicians, and even murdering its way toward the
goal of taking citizens' weapons and imposing tyranny upon them.

For some people, guns are
like abortion, politics boiled down to a single issue.

Gun-rights absolutists have some reason to be concerned
about the course of recent history; there has been an incremental
creep toward nationwide gun control. Congress has passed laws in
response to spectacular gun violence — first in the 1930s, as
organized crime emerged, and then in 1968, 1986, 1993 and 1994,
reacting to two race riots in Los Angeles and a wave of
assassinations (with President John F. Kennedy, the Rev. Martin
Luther King Jr., and Sen. Robert F. Kennedy killed and President
Ronald Reagan wounded). Some state legislatures have taken their
own steps, and gun-control advocacy groups have sprung up. Because
of these regulations, which include heavier licensing fees that
discourage small gun businesses, in the last 20 years the number of
federally licensed gun retailers nationwide has declined by 80
percent, leaving about 50,000 in business today.

But the
controls have awakened a powerful gun-rights movement composed not
only of the single-minded National Rifle Association (3.6 million
members), but also many smaller groups, down to the Wisconsin-based
Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership (about 6,500
members). This movement has thwarted attempts to pass more laws and
rolled back provisions of existing regulations. It has also pushed
new, blatantly pro-gun laws — allowing more people to carry
concealed guns in more places, for example — while
encouraging voters to evaluate political candidates in terms of
their position on guns. And the number of civilian guns in the U.S.
has continued to increase, topping 250 million now, more than
one-third of the world's total.

The whole gun-rights
movement has a Western flavor, invoking the frontier mythology of
fast-draw self-defense, says one of the region's gun-fascinated
academics, Jean Burbick, who is a professor of English and American
Studies at Washington State University. She studied gun shows and
other gun-related events in Idaho, Nevada, Washington and several
states outside the region to write her 2006 book, Gun Show
Nation: Gun Culture and American Democracy. At a gun show
in Illinois, she found piles of Buffalo Bill memorabilia and booths
for groups called Cowboy Action Shooting and the Single Action
Shooting Society (members dress up like Wyatt Earp to do their
blasting). She writes, "The mystique of the Western gun rested on
an inflated belief in the individual and the power within reach of
an ordinary human being."

More from Communities

Why is this fool living
in the United States, trying to take our freedoms, when there are
many countries willing to cater to her desire to be
dominated?

Anonymous

Aug 07, 2007 11:10 AM

Hmmm, I thought High Country News was about
celebrating Western Culture, not sneering at it. You forgot to get
a quote from your leftist professor ("English and American
Studies", now there's an impressive discipline)
about how guns are a phallic symbol, didn't you?
That's about the only thing you missed in this biased
screed.

Anonymous

Aug 07, 2007 11:34 AM

A native Westerner myself, I have a number
of specific and good reasons for liking and owning guns, none of
which was represented fairly in this article.

The majority of Americans, particularly in the
West, feel similarly. Your writer, Ray
Ring, is in a shrinking minority.
(Leave Paonia once in awhile and see for yourself).

The surest way to lose half your readership is
to publish more biased anti-gun crap like this.

sagenav

Aug 07, 2007 03:49 PM

I'm a native Westerner and a gun owner, but I
didn't really have a problem with this article.
Gun ownership is part of the America heritage and especially so in
the West. However, that doesn't preclude
responsibility. We, as a nation and a gun-culture, need
to find that fine line between the freedom to express that heritage
and at the same time how to use common sense and responsibility
in its implementation. Maybe
we need to shift our cultural
consciousnes from gun ownership as a
"right" to gun ownership as
a privilege. Then we can finally admit
that our society has reached a point where not everyone
has the right to own a gun.

Anonymous

Aug 07, 2007 04:51 PM

I
don't understand how anyone could deny that there are
individuals in this country that should even be near firearms, let
alone own them. If responsible gunowners
could come up with suggestions, perhaps even solutions,
as to why laws shouldn't be made to limit and
monitor some irrational, dangerous individuals,
and some of the automatic, rapid-firing, large caliber
guns, I, for one, would be glad to listen. As far as
prohibiting Americans from owning
firearms, those Democrats listed in this article
have no intentions of taking guns out of gunowner's
houses. I and many other Liberals in this
country believe that people have gunowner
rights. Another
question. How can so many people concerned
with firearm's rights be so quick to relinquish
their other Constitutional rights that our executive
office and the majority of Congress has recently taken from
us?

Bruce Huey

CO

Anonymous

Aug 08, 2007 11:34 AM

Guns aren't going to go away in
America. They are too valuable a political football for
the politicians. Just like illegal immigration, nothing
gets people up on their soap box like a
heated, rhetoric-fueled Gun Rights
arguement. Remember: People shoot guns, not the other way
around.

As Bruce Haley said:
"How can so many people concerned
with firearm's rights be so quick to relinquish
their other Constitutional rights that our executive
office and the majority of Congress has recently taken from
us? " Good question.

Anonymous

Aug 08, 2007 11:35 AM

Bruce,

Felons
are already prohibited from possession of firearms. How
else would you like to do it? In Germany, you have to
belong to a club & it can take up to a year to purchase a
firearm including a psychological exam. That
still didn't stop a university student
from killing 16 people then himself. Criminals, by their
very nature, will go to illegal means to get their hands on a
weapon.

Are you even aware of the
process required to purchase a firearm? If legislation
making purchasing more complicated lowered crime, why are crime
rates highest in the states that have the strictest gun laws?

If you believe the anti-gun
democrats (there are some republicans too) don't want to
reduce firearms ownership as close to zero as possible, you are
either ignorant or disingenuous. Senator Dianne Feinstein
stated on 60 minutes in regards to handguns, "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate
of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of
them, Mr. and Mrs. America turn them all in, I would have done
it."

Anonymous

Aug 08, 2007 11:46 AM

"As far as prohibiting Americans
from owning firearms, those Democrats listed in
this article have no intentions of taking guns out of
gunowner's houses"

"If I could have
gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright
ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them
all in, I would have done
it."

-Senator Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif, discussing the
1994 "crime bill"

Anonymous

Aug 08, 2007 11:46 AM

"I don't understand how
anyone could deny that there are individuals in this country that
should even be near firearms, let alone own them." Sounds
reasonable, until you realize thousands of individuals have been
denied the right to protect their families due to battlefield
stress while in the military, or due to misdemeanors like
"domestic violence" that often amounted to little
more than a slap (an unconstitutional es-post facto law).
Government never stops in their regulation where you or I think
they should stop. Nor are any real crazies ever truly denied access
if they want it (there is a black market after all). Gun control
cannot deliver what it promises, and imposes something else that we
don't want.

And gun ownership as a
privilege? There's a sure path to gun prohibition.

"How can so many people
concerned with firearm's rights be so quick to
relinquish their other Constitutional rights..."
Maybe some of them see others such as yourself indulging in picking
and choosing their constitutional rights, so they think
it's OK for them to do it too. Tit for tat. Don't
like constitutional rights going away? Then support all of them.
Don't fall for this "reasonable gun
control" crap, which is no better than
"reasonable speech control".

Anonymous

Aug 08, 2007 11:48 AM

As
sure as the Cross on Mount Olive, the Head Piece
being The Freedom of Religion, Its Arms being
The Freedom of Speech, the Base holding Them, is Our
Freedom to Bear Arms. With out this Base of support, the
Other Two Freedoms fall to the Earth; One, Two, Three----just like
that, They would dissapear. Do you really believe the agenda of
those who would erode our basic freedoms want you to go into the
New World Order with a way to control how we get there. Just who do
you think these people are?

I applaude this
author's right to say anything she wants to
say, so long as she understands, that
I would Die for that Freedoms she
enjoys, should it ever be necessary to do so.

Semper Fidelis.

Frank
Caputo

De Ruyter, NY

tadkins

Aug 08, 2007 11:54 AM

Thanks for examining an aspect of western
culture that receives less coverage than it deserves.
Responsible gun ownership includes acceptance of safeguards that
are essential to the maintenance of a peaceful society.
The paranoia and fear driving this small, feverish band of gun
zealots is one of the strongest arguments for strengthening
regulations. Their willingness to barricade the doors and
start exchanging fire with any manifestation of government force
begs for increased measures to prevent them from attaining that
capability.

I suppose it's
obligatory to mention that I am a native Montanan and a lifelong
gun owner in order to appease the xenophobes. I
personally welcome strengthened legislation limiting access to
military assault-style weaponry, and I know a great many
westerners, Americans, and human beings who agree.

sagenav

Aug 08, 2007 02:01 PM

Amendment II

A well regulated militia, being
necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people
to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Read the first part: "A well regulated militia, being
necessary to the security of a free state..."

This amendment was written before the United States had
an official, government controlled standing army. The
country relied on citizen militias to defend the country.
We now have a large government controlled/regulated militia that is
very well armed. We do not need a citizenry that is armed
to the teeth as if they were a militia. Wake up! Times
have changed and our laws need to change as well. The
regulation of firearms is not unreasonable. I too find it
ironic that many of you who spout off about defending the
constitution (as you interpret it) seem to have no problem with the
current administration stripping the country of some of its base
freedoms and threating the very fabric of our constitutional
government. Amazing.

Anonymous

Aug 08, 2007 03:31 PM

Oh for pete's sake!

"... the gun-rights movement began ... as a
reflection of white men’s anxiety about the civil rights
movement."

The
gun control
movement in the United States began as (and continues to largely
be) an effort to keep firearms out of the hands of blacks! How in
the world the can someone possibly think that the gun rights
movement has anything to do with race? The
belief that individuals have the right to arm themselves in their
own self-defense and should be able to do so without egregious and
arbitrary interference from the government is absolutely
color-blind.

Professor Burbick's
biases seem to be hindering her ability to see the truth.

"The Gang has the format of a
documentary, presenting interviews and other evidence, but really
it’s a one-sided attack on the ATF."

If the data they present as facts are indeed accurate
then it is a documentary. There's no
rule saying that a documentary has to be balanced, just factually
accurate. For instance, do you think it would be possible to do a
balanced documentary of the Gestapo or of Pol Pot and the Khmer
Rouge?

"The people in the audience
must know of the incident, but apparently think the actions of an
unbalanced shooter don’t bear on their gun
rights."

They don't. Why
should the acts of an insane person constrain the rights and
freedoms of those who are not insane?

Anonymous

Aug 08, 2007 03:32 PM

I felt the author Ray Ring did an
exceptional job at writing this article. No sides were taken; just
the facts of the topic were presented. I don’t
see how the previous comment posters can derive the notion that the
author is either for or against gun control.(Although I was interrupted several times
while reading the article, so I may have missed
something)

I found the
article to be highly informative on an issue I know little
about.Gun ownership has never been necessary for
me due to my exceptionally large penis.

-Idaho

Anonymous

Aug 08, 2007 07:21 PM

This article has inspired me....to make an
extra large donation to the NRA and go buy a new gun this weekend!
I grew up hunting and target shooting with my Dad and his friends.
They were/are some of the hardest working, most
honorable men I've ever met. They would do
anything for a friend and they could all be classified as
"gun nuts" by the anti-2nd Amendment factions in
this country.

Matt Mallery

Anonymous

Aug 09, 2007 11:19 AM

" If responsible gunowners
could come up with suggestions, perhaps even solutions,
as to why laws shouldn't be made to limit and
monitor some irrational, dangerous individuals, -
Bruce"

Just one.
It's called incarceration, whether in a mental institution
or a prison. If an individual canot be trusted to be
around arms then they cannot be trusted to be loose in society. So
lock them up.

"Maybe we need to shift our
cultural consciousnes from gun ownership as a
"right" to gun ownership as a privilege
- sagenov"

You are free to do
whatever you want to with your rights, JUST DON'T TRY TO
TOUCH MINE!

Anonymous

Aug 09, 2007 11:22 AM

"Guns R
Us"

was a hatchet job of the first order.

The author (Ray Ring) used the civil rights
infringement of Red's Trading Post as a fig leaf to present
a blatant anti-gun screed.

Take this
quote:

"The seats are mostly
filled; some of the people are drinking beers they’ve
carried in from the saloon. They’ve come to show (1)
support for a man they respect, and (2) their insistence on the
U.S. constitutional right to bear arms, which they see enshrined in
the Second Amendment, right up there with the amendments
guaranteeing freedom of speech and religion."

The part about people drinking is inserted to mark the
people seeing the show as perhaps drunkards, at least to make you
wonder.

The comment about the second
amendment is carefully phrased as "their insistence on the
U.S. constitutional right to bear arms.." "which
they see enshrined in the Second Amendment..."

As if it is not written in the Bill of Rights, merely
inferred by radical drunken gun-rights fanatics.

The rest is line after line of the same drivel. This is a
VERY anti-gun article.

It is shameful that
this writer used Ryan Horsley as grist for his anti-gun
agenda.

Anonymous

Aug 09, 2007 11:28 AM

At first, the article was interesting to me, but after
reading the whole thing it seems a bit slanted. I'm an avid
shooter and hunter, and it seems to paint me as a
"nut". I'm a sane guy out here in the
west who enjoys hunting and shooting with my kids to put food on
the table, and I don't appreciate the feds trying to limit
where I can purchase supplies. The guys with guns out there holding
up liquor stores didn't buy them at licensed gun stores,
and that's where the feds need to concentrate their/our
money. It seems "High Country News" needs to
change it's name to "Low Country News".
Colorado used to be the "West", but seems
it's a little closer to Kalifornia than I
thought.

Anonymous

Aug 09, 2007 11:32 AM

Professor Burbick is fascinated by guns?!?!?
Are you kidding??? Burbick is aboput as anti-gun as you can get!
She was shown the door for trying to do an
"expose" on a gun show!

And
this article is a hit piece against Red's in
particular and gun owners in genral, nothing less. You can see it
in the snide references to the way gun owners view the Second
Amendment, while references to the Brady Bunch, etal, if not
outright reverent, are at least devoid of the snarkiness.

The Guano Group (BATFEces) has played fast and
loose with the Bill of Rights for years now, and more and more gun
owners are getting wise to the Guano Group, and they don't
like what they see. Congress just had a big to do about them over a
gun show in Richmond, Virginia, and it appears that it
hasn't bothered them at all. It's no wonder that
many gun owners are beginning to think it's time to use the
2A as it was intended, and "call 'em out in the
street, Pilgrim!"

So, how
'bout it, Ray? Since you can cherry-pick rights for us, can
we do the same for you, and put "reasonable
controls" on your First Amendment right to free speech?
(By the way, gun ownership is a right; not a
"privilege".)

Molon Labe

Crotalus (Don't
Tread on Me)

Anonymous

Aug 09, 2007 11:33 AM

From the article - "The people in the
audience must know of the incident, but apparently think the
actions of an unbalanced shooter don’t bear on their gun
rights." Since when do the actions of every unbalanced
-'whatever'- bear on our rights? I
don't get a speeding ticket when you speed, (yes, I know)
so why are my gun rights being restricted when someone else abuses
their gun rights. By your tho't process shouldn't
religion be closely controlled because of the likes of
Heaven's Gate and Jim Jones and his Kool-Aid and all those
priests emotionally wounding all those children? Dead people are
dead people no matter how they die. Wounded is wounded. So if
intense control of religion could save just one life,
wouldn't it be worth severely restricting religion? Should
every newspaper be highly regulated because someone could print
lies and libelous statements and incite a riot where property is
damaged and people die? The basic underlying premise of every one
of us 'guns nuts' is we just want a chance to not
be a victim. I would rather have a gun and lose the battle than
have no gun and always wonder 'What
if?'

Anonymous

Aug 09, 2007 02:16 PM

By changing a few words in Professor
Burbick's sentence, we're able to come up with the
truth:

"Gun-control laws
have become a fetish — an emotional response to a
changing America," she notes, "the idea that
somehow, the social problems of the U.S. will be solved through
government regulation of private gun ownership and a lot fewer guns
in the hands of lawful American citizens."

See how that works? We have a lot of evidence
that armed American citizens protect themselves from criminals
every day, usually without a shot fired. There is zero evidence to
prove that disarming law abiding citizens, through
"tougher gun-control laws" does anything to
reduce violent crime.

There is no freedom when
only the Military and Police are allowed to keep and bear
arms.

Never forget Liviu Librescu!

Anonymous

Aug 09, 2007 04:54 PM

Regarding "Guns R Us:" As a long-time
subscriber, and sometime contributor, to High Country News, I
always look forward to your feature reporting--especially when the
reporter is Ray Ring. But I have seldom been not only so
disappointed by an article's obvious slant, but also so
absolutely astonished by the lack of breadth in Ring's
information-gathering (it is not worthy of being called
"research").His primary source--indeed, practically his only
source--is Professor Jean Burbick of Washington State University,
whose GUN SHOW NATION: GUN CULTURE AND AMERICAN DEMOCRACY does
little more than rehash the standard screed of the anti-gun crowd.

There is, by now, a large and well-developed body of
literature presenting multiple sides of the complex story of
American gun ownership—much of it coming from the
political left of center, at that.It would have been appropriate for Ring to have
familiarized himself with some of it. For readers of yours who may
be seeking a more balanced perspective on American gun users, and
enthusiasts, I would suggest the following books: Abigail
Kohn's SHOOTERS: MYTHS AND REALITIES OF AMERICA'S
GUN CULTURES (Oxford University Press,2005); Jan E.
Dizard’s anthology GUNS IN AMERICA (New York University
Press, 1999); Caitlin Kelly’s BLOWN AWAY: AMERICAN WOMEN
AND GUNS (Pocket Books, 2004); and my book with Carol Oyster, GUN
WOMEN: FIREARMS AND FEMINISM IN CONTEMPORARY AMERICA (New York
University Press, 2000). All of these works amply show that there
is a lot more going on in America's "gun
culture" than a bunch of conservative white Anglo-Saxon
males asserting their masculinity and playing at being gunslingers.
That stereotype is limiting, demeaning, distorting, and insulting
to the majority of HCN's readers who are, themselves,
responsible gun owners and users.

Mary Zeiss Stange

Ekalaka,
Montana

Anonymous

Aug 10, 2007 11:03 AM

Look at this website and then ask what yourself what
the outcome would have been if the victim was without the means to
defend themselves. Would they be alive today?

http://claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html

Firearms are used for self defense purposes everyday by people of
all ages and all races.

Anonymous

Aug 10, 2007 11:03 AM

You want a gun enthusiast to suggest an
answer? Ok, how about we make it really, really illegal
to kill people. That will stop all this crime now,
wouldn't it?

How are those
"illegal drug" laws working for you?

How are those "illegal immigration"
laws working for you?

The Bill of Rights
enumerates RIGHTS that pre-existed BEFORE the government
did. The 2nd Amendment does not "grant"
you the "priviledge" of weapon ownership (under
whatever restrictive and totally worthless laws the government see
fit to employ). It says YOU have that RIGHT and the
government SHALL NOT INFRINGE upon that right.
Period. End of story.

Anonymous

Aug 10, 2007 11:05 AM

A fool and his God Given rights (Bill of Rights) are
easily separated. Anyone willing to give up these rights deserves
none. Just because Congress makes a law and the Supreme Court
blesses it doesn't make it Constitutional. Peoples
acceptance of Unconstitutional laws leads to slavery. A small drip
of water on stone can make the Rockies into beach
sand.

Anonymous

Aug 10, 2007 11:05 AM

sagenav

Maybe
we need to shift our cultural
consciousnes from freedom of speech as a
"right" to freedom of speech as
a privilege. Then we can finally admit
that our society has reached a point where not everyone
has the right to speak.

Posted by Viet Nam Vet

Anonymous

Aug 10, 2007 11:05 AM

This article proves yet again that no two
words were ever more meant to be used together
than"CLUELESS LIBERAL".

Madison,Jefferson,and Hamilton would spit in the face of this
marxist dupe.

Anonymous

Aug 10, 2007 11:09 AM

"Horsley took over the
shop about eight years ago as other family members stepped back,
and he changed it from a clutter of knickknacks into a formidable
business that offers rows of assault rifles and nearly everything
else a shooter would desire."

Please explain to us, Mr. Ring, what exactly an
'assault rifle' is and why you are so afraid of a
law-abiding citizen possessing such.

Thought
for the day: Gun control is a tight grouping in the
center of the target.

A real reporter would have verified the authenticity. A liberal
thug with an agenda would not.

Guess which one
this is.

Anonymous

Aug 13, 2007 11:58 AM

California used to be a reasonable state
when I lived there in 1961. Then the progressive
socialist "Democrats" took over.

The Western slope of Colorado used to be a down-to-earth,
focused place where a man (or woman) cold live a free
life. Then the "Kalifornicators" moved
in.

Going to high school in Steamboat Springs
(back when it was a cow town), every student's pickup had a
gun rack with a rifle in it during elk season. No one
shot up the County High School. When the newly elected
"Kalifornicator" city council banned the carrying
or possesion of a firearm, case or uncased, loaded or unloaded,
anywhere outside of one's dwelling, the Chief of Police
just ignored it. Next election, the locals elected locals
and that ordinance went away.

There is a
historical trend. As the socialist progressive
"better People" move us towards their
communitarian 'Utopia" nanny state and away from a
free democratic Republic with limited government we are bombarded
by articles like this to keep us worried and afraid. Guns
are tools. Guns are inanimate objects. Tools
and inanimate objects are neither good or bad, moral or
immoral.

The PERSON that wields the
tool can use it for good or bad. The USE the tool is put
to can be moral, immoral, or neutral.

The
socialist progressives and their cheerleaders in the so-called
media (whether its "news",
"entertainment" or both) realize that in order
for a free people to be cajoled into voluntary slavery they must be
frightened and herded. Only then will the sheeple clamor
for more laws, more safety, more security, more taxes, more
regulation while orgasmically surrendering their rights and
freedom. Then there's that whole
"inflated belief in the individual"!
Can't have anyone question "the State"
can we? Funny how the heirs of Abie Hoffman have become
the vanguard of the subjugation of the individual to the
State.

Murder is already
illegal. Possession of firearms by felons is already
illegal. Murder rates are dropping, especially in states
with high gun ownership and 'shall issue' concealed
carry laws. But that is against the mantra! We
have always been at war with Eurasia! ("!984"
reference). So the hyperbole must be ratcheted up to
scare the sheeple!

More
"reasonable restrictions" every day.
More laws from Congress, more volumes of Federal regulations
'as the Secretary deems necessary' to enforce those
additional laws, more state laws because there are new Federal
laws, more local ordinances, more misdemeanors turned into
felonies, new felonies, new ex-post facto laws, more police, more
state and Federal "agents" and 'special
operations' units - like the US Dept. of Health and Human
Services SWAT teams, and more people who are already felons for
breaking laws no one ever heard of to arrest.

The socialist progressive communitarians and their
cheerleaders must demonize guns. The lawful possession
and lawful use of firearms must be made a sin against humanity - an
evil. Don't let your children play there - that
man owns a gun! Doctors, interrogate your
patients! Find out who has a gun because its a mental
illness / public health issue! Teachers! Ask your pupils
if their parents have a gun! Its for the
children! But lets ignore everything else,
because its a privacy issue...

"Citizens" will not need guns in our brave new
utopia, but police departments need sub machine guns, fully
automatic M16s, heavy machine guns and armored vehicles because
they are "outgunned" (they really aren't,
since the most common firearm used in crime is either a .38
revolver or a small-caliber automatic), and masks to hide their
faces during no-knock raids at 2 a.m. (and aren't the
socialist progressive communitarians like Her Excellency, the
Senator-Because-She-Should-Be and President-to-be-by-Acclamation,
Hillary Rodham; Senators Boxer and Feinstein; et al the heirs of
the 1960s? more like the heirs of Major Daley the First).

Your article mentions Westerners owning
machineguns under the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun
Control Act of 1968 (and amended by the 1986 Volkmer-McClure
Act). How many of these have ever been used in a
crime? Could it be zero (0)? Except for the one
owned by a policeman (under the special rules for police) which he
used to kill an informant?

Thank you for doing
your part in reeducating the masses. After the Second
Amendment, we'll work on that pesky First.

Anonymous

Aug 14, 2007 01:13 PM

The writer states that Jason
Kenneth Hamilton was able to acquire a gun by "mail from
an out-of-state dealer", implying that the gun was
delivered to his door by the Post Office or UPS.

We haven't been able to mail order a gun since
'68, for all the good it's done.

The quoted phrase is a distortion by
omission. The law requires interstate transfers to be accomplished
by sending the gun to a local, LICENSED, dealer, who would verify
that the recipient was who he said he was, and conduct the
MANDATORY check against the criminal and mental datebase. The man
may well have belonged to the Aryan Nations, but, at least so far,
guilt by association hasn't been codified (outside of
newspapers, that is) as a disabling trait for gun ownership. I
leave the reader to decide if this omission is either poor
journalism or bias.

Anonymous

Aug 17, 2007 12:02 PM

Your magazine is supposedly 'for
people who care about the West', yet you publish this
garbage?

You people don't really get
America. Please do us all a favor and move to the UK, or some other
nanny-state.

Anonymous

Aug 20, 2007 11:51 AM

High Country News, you would have to be High
just to publish this drival.....long live freedom, lets celebrate
the open range...lets live by the libertarian creed...I'm
so libertarian that I don't even believe in stop
signs....why would we need guns when George Bush is on watch? The
only reason to have gun control in my book would be to protect Dick
Cheneys hunting buddies! Live and Let Live thats the mantra of the
west.

Peace
Yale Bloor

Anonymous

Aug 23, 2007 04:57 PM

Dear Editor,

Articles like Guns R US will surley do more damage to your paper
than the recient postal rate increse ever
could. The High Country news has always printed
negative only articles about the West and us backward Westerners
but this time I beleve HCN steped off the edge!

A more one sided presentation of Gun ownership would be nearly
impossible to write. A clue for you,
It's in our constitution, specificaly the Bill Of
Rights. You remember, that unique and incredible idea that the
individual has specific, unailenable, itemized rights not given by
government and thefore these rights cannot be taken by government!
You surely remember that the people of this country are the only
ones, to this day, that had the courage to form thier country
around the idea that the individual and his or her
freedom are the core of our country? Why do you
think the right of Gun Onership by the individual is second only to
the right of freedom of speech? Sort of to back up that
right and all the others, ya think? I guess the editors of HCN must
have had thier heads where the sun doesn't shine or
this really poor excuse for journalism would have
been quickly inserted in the round file.

As a journalestic endevor why don't you look up
the "Shot Heard Around the World"? It
is the incident that started the Revolutionary War, The
British decided that the colonists in Concord had guns that were
better than thiers and shouldn't have firearms.
Why, they might use them! At a place called Concord
Green, on the bridge, for freedom from tyranny, they used
thier guns, so America was born with an attempt at gun control by
clueless elites. Sort of like yourselves. The British
made a bad mistake, really bad. And so has the High
Country News.

Most Sincerly

Dan Stucker, Hotchkiss, Co

Anonymous

Aug 24, 2007 05:36 PM

What does this make
me?

* I am a FFL (Federal Firearms
Licensee) Dealer and I sell Firearms* I am a Retired
Police Officer* I served over four tours of duty in
Viet Nam* I am a Registered
Republican* I am a Jew and belong to the JPFO (Jews
for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership)* I belong to the
NRA (National Rifle Association)* I am an avid
supporter of the War on Terror and Support Our Troops and Their
MissionWhat does this make me???
Well, let’s see...* I do
believe strongly in the Second Amendment but I also recognize that
not all citizens should be allowed to own firearms. I view weapons
ownership the same way that I do the privilege of driving a
vehicle. Before being allowed to drive, a person must prove
proficiency (so as not to endanger the public). Which is
"potentially" more dangerous... driving an
automobile of carrying a loaded firearm? I would rank them as being
about equal in the scheme of things. For those who are
mixed up on the words "It's my Right
to....", well, you have "Rights" under
the First Amendment as well, but not to the extent that you can
endanger the safety or rights of others by the exercise of
"Your" rights. Living in a civilized society is a
balancing act... a series of gives and takes with "Public
Safety" being foremost and paramount.
Yes, everyone has the "Right" to bear
arms, but those "Rights" may, and should be, (in
my opinion) reasonably regulated. It is incumbent upon
Congress to see to it that the rights guaranteed to the people are
not abrogated or overly-regulated.* I support the
BATFE (Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives) and
recognize that they have an important roll to play in the War on
Terror and in keeping America a safe place for
us to live. I am personally acquainted with some of their agents
and know them to be totally professional and dedicated individuals.
Calling them murders and accusing them of being involved in a
conspiracy to deprive Americans of their lawfully acquired weapons
is far-fetched and un-deserved.* For those
“All or Nothing” types who march blindly
forward saying that ALL Constitutional Rights must be
equally supported and defended, you have a point. However, to deny
that gun ownership should be anything else than a
“Privilege” is insane. As a licensed
Firearms Dealer, I can refuse to sell my products to anyone that I
feel should not possess a firearm. I can make that assessment and I
don’t have to give a reason. Sure, anyone wanting a gun
can get one just like the resistance does when fighting a
repressive Government. But…I am convinced that
restricting the ease with which some may acquire a firearm
undoubtedly saves lives. We all admit that the
“hard-core” individuals who want a gun will get
one no matter what repressive gun laws may be on the books. There
is no debate there.* Conclusion: I believe that the
laws already on the books are more than adequate to control the
illegal possession of firearms. Many of the States have draconian
firearms laws which should be overturned. I am against any State
making laws more restrictive than the federal laws already
standing. There is no evidence anywhere to show that repressive gun
laws make your neighborhood any safer from gun violence. On the
contrary, in areas where concealed weapons permits are granted much
the same way one would get their driver’s licenses have
less crime (i.e. fewer home invasions, burglaries, car-jacking and
armed robberies).
Firearms are as
much a deterrent to violent crime as an armed citizenry deters the
rise of a dictatorial Government. Those politicians who advocate
removing firearms from the hands of the public perhaps have a
hidden agenda which causes them to rightfully fear the armed
citizen. Firearms are necessary for the preservation of Freedom and
Democracy. Resonable regulation of firearms ownership is not
however, a violation of our right to bear
arms.Bill Maniaci,
OwnerMaccabee Arms
Ltd.Reno, Nevada

Anonymous

Aug 28, 2007 03:58 PM

There's another issue that was
briefly touched on in this article.

"Horsley tells the crowd that the ATF is trying to
bankrupt him with legal bills, so even if its case against him
collapses, he’ll be out of business."

Whether it's the ATF, the IRS or probably most
any other Federal Agency, it's all the same.
Guilt should never be determined by how much one can pay in legal
fees and court costs. Once these agencies make an
accusation, one is guilty until he or she is proven innocent, which
may never happen if the person has limited resources.
Until this is changed and the judicial system is there for all of
us there are going to be alot of innocent people bankrupted by the
system.

Anonymous

Sep 04, 2007 11:17 AM

The claim, in the movie, that there is no federal
agency regulating freedom of speech is wrong. That is precisely
what the FCC does. There are also federal conspiracy laws that
limit what a person can say, as well as a series of Supreme Court
decisions that do so also.

Anonymous

Sep 24, 2007 12:00 PM

Good story, Ray!

This anxiety has been going on for a long time, and the
Feds only seem to aggravate it with their ham-handed methods.

There is no surer way to mobilize the "right-wing
crazies" than for the Feds (notably the BATFE) to keep
overreacting to some of these cases, and then wonder in stunned
amazement why there are events like Ruby Ridge, Militias, the
Montana Freemen, etc.

It is federal incompetence which only
helps to give goonies like Larry Pratt a prime soapbox; But he has
a point, when he charges that the NRA is not radical enough, and
that, in turn, inspires others.

I am teaching both of my daughters
safe firearms handling and marksmanship, while discouraging hunting
of wildlife -- unless we absolutely need it for our food supply.
But they need to know about guns, and about very-real consequences
of firing ammunition, and how to be responsible for their own
safety. Needless to say, they really like shooting.

When the
corporations and government sends out squads from Blackwater
Security to discipline the towns in the Heartland, they better
watch out for my Annie Oakleys! Don't laugh -- it could
happen..........

V-Vet

Anonymous

Oct 17, 2007 07:04 PM

My family has lived west of the West for
nearly four hundred years.

I own guns.

I hunt.

I will never join
the NRA.

A year ago last spring I came home,
happy as the proverbial clam, a nice turkey in my vest, my Benneli
doing it up just right.

I came home to
wretched disappointment in finding all the rest of my
rifles and a pistol gone, stolen by a meth head.

If there were more comprehensive registration of firearms
chances are that

a) those firearms would have
been much less enticing to the drugged out twerp that could EASILY
sell them on the street.

b) well he was a
drugged out twerp, he might have taken them anyway, but if there
were a culture of checking weapons w/ instant data retrieval
I would stand a much better chance when said twerp was
stopped on the street. Plus I'd get the pleasure
of having him caught.

This is not
"gun control" per say but thug control.

As Americans we can demand the laws we believe
to be best for our well being. We could codify insurances that guns
will never be taken from responsible, law abiding Americans.